Women failing to attend smear tests

@RedToothBrush - Jo's trust assure me that they recognise screening is a choice, but that message doesn't seem to have got through to their PR people.

I would urge people to contact them directly. I doubt with their tiny resources they're trawling mumsnet to see what we think.

For anyone who wants to feedback to Jo's trust, they have a survey up.

www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/cervicalscreeningforsurvivors

This is specifically with regard to survivors of sexual assualt, but you don't have to be a survivor to fill it in. I do think it's worth telling them (politely) what you think, hopefully they will get the message and refocus their efforts on improving service provision, not reprimanding women for not having smears.

No you are not allowed to. The charity supposedly for women and promoting awareness of cervical cancer doesnt want you make a decision they dont agree with.

Of course we can't toadsforjustice.

As I said upthread, it's genuinely fascinating the level of anger and contempt that opting out of smears inspires in some quarters. There's a good dissertation to be written on the reasons for that rage, I think.

Just saw this on page 2 from @Phoenix1973

"I hate smears so much I have a double brandy before I go in. And I don't even like alcohol. I take it to get through that.
I was lucky as I was tested before the start age was 25.
They found pre-cancerous cells when I was 21. I had laser treatment and was fine physically. I've never been right mentally since."

I'm so sorry that's happened to you but the reason that the start age has now been raised to 25 is that women younger than that frequently have abnormal cells that will return to their normal state on their own. So the chances are that the treatment you had was unnecessary, and as you say, it's had a really bad effect on you mentally.

This is why Jo's trust ARE wrong to try to scare women into having smear tests by exaggerating the risks hugely. I've certainly e-mailed and tweeted them to tell them that. They are a single issue tiny charity beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details?regid=1133542&subid=0 with a talent for publicity. If you want proper accurate information on cervical cancer go to the Cancer Research website. Not Jo's trust.

I wouldn't mind Jo's trust if they gave factual, balanced, information, which is that cervical cancer is a cancer a woman has less than 1% lifetime risk of getting and that screening can reduce that risk, but we don't know by exactly how much. But instead, if you look at their twitter feed, it's full of stories about women who missed their smear and got cancer. The plural of anecdote is not data.

'expatinscotland im sorry you have had such a horrendous experience. If a nurse can’t locate a woman’s cervix she will be referred to Colp or Gyn where they will try and perform a smear test. I look at smears every week where the woman is sent to a colp/gyn just for a smear test, no biopsy involved.'

If you have even bothered to read my posts, which you didn't, just honed in on 'women can be referred to colpo/gyn for a smear' (which isn't entirely true) then you would have also read that I have never had a 'horrendous' experience with smears. In fact, I find them painless. But don't let that interfere with your agenda of patronising women who do experience pain during them by saying they can just go to colpo clinic for a smear. You also completely overlooked the multitude of women who have had HCPs put them in pain trying to find their cervix and/or do a smear test.

Can we not recognise that women are entitled to make an informed decision about cervical screening? If women are happy with their choices, why should they be criticised?

Walking many people have taken the time to explain to you why they don't have this screening test. Some have explained it was painful, others have said they've been sexually assaulted. Others have posted scientific evidence and others have described the horror and pain of having treatment they really didn't need.

And all you have done is mock and sneer at them. I'll maintain I think your comments are creepy. I also think your a man. Because no fucking woman would say the sort of things that you've said.

Interesting. I bet at risk groups who get the flu jab are more likely to die of flu than women are of cervical cancer. Anyone got any stats on that?

@walkingdead11

Also do they hassle people about flu jabs? I don't know but I do know I have been really hassled about smear tests and even when I was very young and dudnt know how to look at risks and data myself.

I've been at the doctors for other things and they have been quite angry and say things like "aren't you worried about dying of cancer then". Do they do this to people about flu jabs?

@walkingdead11

"why not acknowledge my opinion and experience?"

I forgot it while being stunned at the waxing comparison and patronising remarks directed at "young" women.

Sorry that this is The Sun, but has there been any further news on bringing this device into use?

www.thesun.co.uk/living/3697283/cervical-cancer-risk-check-without-speculum/

Thinking around less invasive alternatives, why can't mini cameras be used to perform the visual bit of the test, and a probe/swab thing for the sample? Why does it have to be a speculum that should have been consigned to the medical museum decades ago?

I'd also be interested to hear about ways we can maintain our cervical health. I vaguely remember something about "rough sex" being a risk factor at a Well Woman clinic years ago - we never hear about that now.

Thanks!

Cancer mortality in females

www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/mortality/common-cancers-compared#heading-Zero

The only cancer with less deaths in females than cervix is mesethioloma. Not surprising since not many women worked in industries were they were exposed to asbestos.

@Farahilda - cancer research again - it's really very good for stats.

www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/common-cancers-compared#heading-Zero

Cervical doesn't appear in the top female cancers.

Because of the time taken to produce stats, they're not usually bang up to date. ONS also has stats but they only go up to 2015.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancerregistrationstatisticsengland/previousReleases

These stats are particularly interesting in terms of the claims made about screening.

"Since the early 1990s, cervical cancer incidence rates in females have decreased by almost a quarter (23%) in the UK.
Over the last decade, cervical cancer incidence rates in females have increased by less than a tenth (4%) in the UK."

The screening programme was introduced in 1988. If we assume about 70% of women are screened regularly and that the decrease is only in screened women. (that's an assumption that's not necessarily warranted, but bear with me, this is just rough maths).

The actual percentage decrease in screen women is 23/70 x100. About 33%. Nothing like the 75% decrease in incidence Jo's trust are claiming.

However there are other factors that could cause a decline in incidence. For example smoking is a risk factor. So is having children (the more children the greater the risk), having a weakened immune system and taking the pill for more than five years. The incidence of all these risk factors could have changed at a general population level since the early 90's.

Stuff like more drop in clinics is such low hanging fruit. I don't understand why the time and resources invested in haranguing women isn't redirected towards that type of thing instead.

I'm about 6 months overdue but since having my son my cycle has gone from 40+ days to 15 so with a 2 week waiting time at the GP I'm stuck in a cycle of cancelling appointments because by period has arrived. I just want to get it over with. Maybe drop in clinics would encourage more women to go. Must admit I put my first one off for a couple of years as I was anxious about it.

From cancerresearchuk.org

"Cervical cancer mortality is related to age, with the highest mortality rates being in older females. In the UK in 2012-2014, on average each year almost half (47%) of deaths were in females aged 65 and over. However, this is a lower proportion of deaths in older age compared with most cancers."

Anyone got a recent list of incidence and mortality by cancer type? (I've googled quickly and most recent I could find was from 2014)

Carcinoma of the breast (along with lung and prostate) is usually towards the top of that rather grin league table; cervical cancer takes enough lives to get an entry of its own (rather than being lumped in with 'other malignancies) and is usually about 20th position.

It's also pretty silly not to recognise that people might feel differently about internal and non-internal procedures. I don't wax, personally, but nonetheless it still isn't beyond me to understand that a woman might feel fine with pain in a procedure on the outside of her body but not on the inside.

Oh dear too many year with the police and black humour then. It is odd that on here it is all how terrible that women are treated so much worse than men but you don't really like to know that men are treated just the same. Spoils the woe is me thread doesn't it.

Or maybe people think the research posted is a bit more important and persuasive than your anecdotes.

@Grannytomine:

You can find cervical cancer stats on the cancer research site

www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer

Under 'cervical cancer incidence'

1 in 135 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer during their lifetime.

So it's actually less than 1% now.

*they're